- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The detailed sourcing directly attacks Sony’s legal claim that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to own their digital purchases on the PlayStation Store.
The detailed sourcing directly attacks Sony’s legal claim that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to own their digital purchases on the PlayStation Store.
No, this has never been how copyright works, if you buy a book you own that copy of the book, the author can’t go into your house and take the book back, they can’t force a new version of the book onto you, they can’t require you to proof you own the book before they allow you to read it, and they can’t stop you from reselling the book. You OWN that copy, you don’t own the IP, but you own that copy of the book.
You own the physical thing, but you’re still only licensing the copy of the work, and agreeing to that license on purchase. Lookup the first sale doctrine. Your ability to resell used copyrighted works literally hinges on a supreme court decision.
What I’m trying to get at is, this should not only aggravate us towards Sony. It should radicalize you against Copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement
You completely misunderstand the first sale doctrine. The doctrine is that copyrighted works are only controllable on the first sale. The copyright holder can’t do anything past that.
The entirety of sales of things for all of humanity wouldn’t function if it was any other way.
You aren’t licensing anything. You are buying an item.
Please show me where it says that purchasing a copyrighted work grants ownership of it.
The very concept of purchasing? The very base of all contract law?
With people like this who needs to even work keeping people down? Do they put a boot on their own neck every night?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
The first sale doctrine literally has NOTHING TO DO with ownership. It has to do with resale restrictions of the copyright holder. You have completely misunderstood the law and its purpose.
Here, since you avoided my question, I’ll just spell it out for you.
Sorry, but you do NOT own any of the copyrighted works that have ever been given to you or purchased. They are all licensed with limited usage rights. I pointed out the first sale doctrine to highlight it as a very narrow exception to the norm of licensing. That exception was born of the necessity to balance the reasonable needs of individuals (and of course the used market as a whole), with the purported needs of media rightsholders. Even if that supreme court decision (which was later codified into law) grants one additional right for a person to make a resale of the finite copies of physical goods they purchased legally, even then you still do not own that product, because a plethora of other restrictions still apply.
Copyright law is in need of serious reform. Pretending it is whatever you want it to be doesn’t magically put it on your side. That’s exactly why scammy companies like Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, and Sony can keep getting away with all their bullshit - the law tends to be on their side whether you like it or not, cause guess who it was written for.
You’re not spelling anything out. This article you are commenting under is literally about the case when YOU ARE NOT BUYING A LICENSE.
Like holy fucking shit you are fucking dense.
And yes you are not buying the fucking copyright. It’s like you don’t understand what that means. If you buy a book from the store you are not buying a license. YOU ALSO AREN’T BUYING THE COPYRIGHT.
Yes you do. Buying the copyright has nothing to do with buying the product. Here’s an example. I as a photographer can sell you an image. I own the copyright on that. You cannot duplicate and resell my works as your own. But you can do whatever the fuck you want with the original you purchased. But guess what, I can also sell you a license to use that work instead of selling you the product. So I can say, you can’t do whatever you want with this. You can only use it for personal use cases or in one book. Nothing else. That’s selling you a license. Finally, I can sell you the entire copyright for the photo, transferring that copyright to you entirely, meaning now I can’t do anything I want with my own creation anymore.
These are three different things. You are only buying a license in a very specific context. You are almost never as an individual purchasing a copyright, though businesses buy and sell them all the time.
For the case above, Sony was selling you the full product. They were not selling a license. They were not selling the copyright. They were selling you an item you owned and can resell.
It won’t radicalize me against copyright because I believe people are entitled to profit from their creations, and until we live in a society beyond the need of money corporations would fuck everyone in the ass (even more so than what they do now) if there were no copyright laws. Or do you any of the mega corporations in Hollywood would give a cent in the direction of a good story of they weren’t legally required to?
In any case, that is different from what Sony is doing now. Like I said before:
Those are not covered by copyright law, you have a right to do that with your books but not with your Sony games.
This steamed from the way digital downloads came about, and we agreed to trade some rights for ease of access, but companies like GoG show that it’s possible to have digital downloads while preserving some of those rights.
One, in a capitalist society, the only thing that entitles you to profit from your work is the completion of a sale. I can draw a crude picture of a turd right now, and despite suddenly becoming an artist, I am not automatically entitled to profit. Two, copyright does not help artists profit. It allows the biggest corporations to consolidate media ownership in their names. By contrast, the internet, which has allowed the free sharing of media on a scale that completely eclipses any other time in history, has allowed more artists than ever to profit from their work. If you care about artists making a living, then you should support information freedom. If you prefer concentrating wealth and media control into one small racket, then yeah I guess copyright is your thing.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you want to reform the legal framework into something equitable, or you can keep bitching about the excesses of the evil corporations for doing the same bullshit they’ve always been doing, while still wanting the same laws that make them what they are to begin with.
And meanwhile, you’re having this argument on a free and open-source platform… why?